Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
When
the
Nixon
case
was
decided,
I
thought
that
while
it
would
give
subsequent
presidents
the
opportunity
to
claim
executive
privilege,
which
was
not
an
established
doctrine,
I
never
thought
it
would
lead
to
a
former
president
claiming
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution.
Yet
here
we
are.
—
Philip
Lacovara,
who
served
as
counsel
to
the
Watergate
special
prosecutor,
in
comments
given
to
the
ABA
Journal
on
why
he
fears
that
the
Supreme
Court
may
expand
the
concept
of
presidential
immunity
for
former
president
Donald
Trump.
“I’m
concerned
that
there
might
be
at
least
some
support
for
him
on
the
court,
and
that’s
indicated
by
how
they
reformulated
the
question,
which
is
to
ask
whether
the
Constitution
provides
immunity
for
actions
that
are
allegedly
within
the
scope
of
presidential
power,”
Lacovara
said.
“The
way
they
formulated
the
question
was
if
the
former
president
alleges
that
he
was
acting
as
president,
is
there
constitutional
immunity?
That’s
the
most
indulgent
formulation
for
Trump’s
benefit.
I’m
pretty
certain
there
are
some
justices
who
want
to
see
Trump
exonerated
or
spared
from
criminal
trial.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on
X/Twitter
and
Threads
or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.